How about 175s? I've seen a few for sale with 180 conversions and decent panels. Not sure if they're any larger inside than a 172.

UngaWunga wrote:How about 175s? I've seen a few for sale with 180 conversions and decent panels. Not sure if they're any larger inside than a 172.

They're not really comparable to a 182, at least in speed and load carrying capacity. My P172D is for all practical and legal purposes (same type certificate) the last of the 175s, with a 180hp conversion & CS prop. It's a great little airplane, and I'm totally satisfied with it, but it has only a little more speed (10-12 knots) over a stock 172 and no more useful load. That means it's limited to about an hour plus reserve with 4 adults, or full fuel and 3 adults, and no baggage to speak of. In contrast, just about any 182 can haul 4 adults, 6 hours of fuel, and 10 lbs. of bags per person. Also, with 50 less hp than a stock 182, my climb rate is a whole lot less than a 182's, especially at high DAs and altitudes.

On the other hand, if a 180hp converted 172/175/P172D is what a person needs to fill their typical mission, then they're great airplanes. You'd have a hard time prying mine away from me.

Cary

I'm looking at a 182D... 55 gallon usable fuel... 1700 empty / 2650 gross / 950 usable.

How is this a 4 person plane with full fuel and no gear? It seems like 172 numbers to me.

idair wrote:I'm looking at a 182D... 55 gallon usable fuel... 1700 empty / 2650 gross / 950 usable.

How is this a 4 person plane with full fuel and no gear? It seems like 172 numbers to me.

It is pretty typical to hear folks refer to Cessnas with more than 200 hp and CS prop as real 4-place airplanes while less than 180 hp with FP props are not practical 4-place planes. On paper the 172s have a pretty good useful load, but the 170s and 172s don't perform very well at gross weight for backcountry and mountain flying ops at higher density altitudes. They do well when lightly loaded and temps are cool. A 230+ HP CS Cessna, while definitely still limited, will perform a LOT better with a full load than a 150-180 FP Cessna.

I'm going to look at a 1961 182D tomorrow. Loaded Avionics and a new panel done right... GTN650, stec 30, aspen 1000. 1100 SMOH. Not sure what it's worth but we'll see what happens.

Sounds like a sweet airplane. A friend flies a '61 182 with a 430 and it is a sweet flying fairly fast airplane. I've heard from many people that the 61 is the fastest 182 because it has the narrow body and the swept tail.

idair wrote:I'm looking at a 182D... 55 gallon usable fuel... 1700 empty / 2650 gross / 950 usable.

How is this a 4 person plane with full fuel and no gear? It seems like 172 numbers to me.

I misspoke when I said "any 182". Later models have much larger gross weight capacity, and that makes the difference, so I should have qualified my statement, "any E model or newer":
D = 2650 GW
E thru M = 2800 GW
N thru R = 2950 GW
S and all others (retracts, turbo'd, etc.) = 3100 GW

The D model you're looking at would still be a bit better than a 172 as far as load capacity (4 light adults, or 3 full size), but it would be overall lighter (empty weight) than later models, which grew heavier as time went on. The biggest issue with the early ones is limited fuel capacity--55 gallons at 13 gph means 3 hours + 1 hour reserve. That's why aux tanks are a popular addition on older models, which if used of course reduces the useful cabin load. Newer ones have much larger tanks, ranging from 78 gallons to 87 gallons, bringing the range up to 5 plus reserve or just under 6 plus reserve. Some folks claim that they can fly on less than 13 gph, which is probably true at lower power settings, although most Skylane owners I've known don't fly at 55% power.

The older straight back models are a tiny bit quicker, because they are narrower, about the same dimensions as a 180 or 185. I used to instruct some in a 58 A model, and it was a honey of an airplane. I have acquaintances who have a gorgeous C model which turns heads wherever it lands. Great airplanes.

Cary

Im going to stick pretty firm to what i stated earlier. I have actually found a few later 60's vintage 182's on barnstormers for 50-65k, there was a nice 1968 K model that i believe had a 430 and a 3 blade for right at 60. I know 60k is not 50k, but i sincerely feel that if you take your time and keep looking you will find a wide cabin C182 with what you are looking for at or near your price. Im assuming you want the wide cabin based on your other topic regarding the cabin size of a 182 with that of a 172.

I have been told and i have personal experience with this now, owning a plane with a friend for a number of years...tradeaplane, controller etc are cool places to look at planes, but i think the best deals i have ever seen are person to person transactions. My A/P mechanic has leads on planes privately for sale all the time...i would go that route rather than through a dealer type situation.

Keep at it, i really think and i hope you will find what it is you are looking for.

Mike

A few updates::

What does a 3-blade get me if it's still 230HP? I always thought it was detrimental without >230HP.

I probably take 3 people around 5 times a year and 4 people about once a year on average. This is on a C-172 with over a 1,050 useful load. I'm a bit disappointed about the weight, but it's not overly upsetting. I was considering the removal of the rear seat to accommodate bikes anyways. Is there something structurally different about the later models other than a GW number? If not, I'm surprised nobody has a STC to increase it.

The range (55 gallon) on the early ones is disappointing. It's not a show stopper, just a nuisance. Primarily it does not allow me to easily tanker mogas around, or if I visit Canada/Mexico I have to buy some of their expensive avgas.

I really like the p-ponks and o-520s, but on second thought I'm not sure it's the best route. Loss of mogas capability, some more fuel burn, and a substantially increased overhaul cost make me think it might be best avoided at this time.

idair wrote:A few updates::

What does a 3-blade get me if it's still 230HP? I always thought it was detrimental without >230HP.

I probably take 3 people around 5 times a year and 4 people about once a year on average. This is on a C-172 with over a 1,050 useful load. I'm a bit disappointed about the weight, but it's not overly upsetting. I was considering the removal of the rear seat to accommodate bikes anyways. Is there something structurally different about the later models other than a GW number? If not, I'm surprised nobody has a STC to increase it.

The range (55 gallon) on the early ones is disappointing. It's not a show stopper, just a nuisance. Primarily it does not allow me to easily tanker mogas around, or if I visit Canada/Mexico I have to buy some of their expensive avgas.

I really like the p-ponks and o-520s, but on second thought I'm not sure it's the best route. Loss of mogas capability, some more fuel burn, and a substantially increased overhaul cost make me think it might be best avoided at this time.

In some installations, a 3 blade provides a little better climb power, but it usually results in a slight loss of cruise speed. It does give more ground clearance, and for some folks, it looks better parked on the ramp.

To me, whether a given airplane has a 2 blade or 3 blade wouldn't make any difference, and it sure wouldn't change the value.

Cary

Remember also that the 60-61 really have 65 gallons of fuel, but 55 useable. It's been my experience that most of that 65 is usable in normal flight attitudes. I have a '60 182C and I love it. Hauls my wife and two kids around with all of our camping gear just fine. I put the extended baggage in it as well, which is another nice benefit of having the fastback fuselage.

3-blades are substantially heavier than 2-blades. The equivalent 3 blade will typically be smaller diameter (yet still heavier) and the weight is hung out as far as possible so 20+ lbs out there really costs W&B. Look into that. You also get a few inches extra ground clearance with the 3-blade so there's that. Everything's a tradeoff.

theamherst wrote: I put the extended baggage in it as well, which is another nice benefit of having the fastback fuselage.

The extended baggage is not limited to the fastbacks, the straight-tales have the same exact extended baggage.

-Paul

corefile wrote:

theamherst wrote: I put the extended baggage in it as well, which is another nice benefit of having the fastback fuselage.

The extended baggage is not limited to the fastbacks, the straight-tales have the same exact extended baggage.

-Paul

All straight tails are fastbacks. In 1960-61 they made a slant tail fast back, and then 62 and beyond Cessna kept the slant tail going but did away with the fastback in favor of the "omnivision" rear window which is still how they are made today.

Nonetheless, you are correct, Selkirk makes an extended baggage for all of the above.